The Seal Products Panel Requests

There are two of them, one for the DS369 dispute and one for the DS400 dispute. These were both brought by Canada; no word yet on whether Norway will be making a panel request to follow its consultations request in DS401.

DS369 deals with consultations from 2007, relating to Belgian and Dutch trade restrictions on seal products. From the panel request:

The Belgian trade ban prohibits the preparation for sale or delivery to consumers, transport for sale or delivery, possession for the purpose of sale, importation, distribution and transfer of seal products. The Belgian import licensing requirement imposes a requirement that an import licence be issued for the importation of seal products.

The Dutch trade ban prohibits the importation of and trade in all harp seal and hooded seal products regardless of the animal's age. This includes a prohibition against asking for the sale, the buying or acquisition, the holding for sale or in stock, the selling or offering for sale, the transportation or offering for transport, the delivery, the use for commercial profit, the renting or hiring, the exchange or offer in exchange, the trade or exhibiting for commercial purposes or the bringing or possessing within or outside the territory of the Netherlands, of harp seal and hooded seal products.

There are claims under GATT Articles I:1, III:4, XI:1 and several provisions of Article V, as well as TBT Agreement Articles 2.1 and 2.2

DS400 deal with an EU-wide regulation and implementing rules. From the panel request:

The European Union trade ban prohibits the importation and the placing on the market for sale in the European Union customs territory of any seal product except: (a) those derived from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities, which contribute to their subsistence; and (b) those that are by-products of a hunt regulated by national law and with the sole purpose of sustainable management of marine resources. In addition, seal products for personal use may be imported but may not be placed on the market. The effect of the trade ban, in combination with the implementing measure, is to restrict virtually all trade in seal products within the European Union, and in particular with respect to seal products of Canadian origin.

There are claims under GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI:1, as well as TBT Agreement Articles 2.1 and 2.2 and certain other provisions of TBT Agreement Articles 5 and 7.

There are also references in both requests to GATT Article XXIII:1(b), the non-violation remedy, but it's not clear whether those claims will be pursued. Sometimes non-violation is mentioned in the panel request but the claims never go anywhere.

It may be harder to follow this case as it progresses than it is for cases involving the U.S. As far as I know, Canada does not generally post its submissions online. The EU does post its submissions, but often not until the proceeding is finished. Maybe the EU will make an exception for this case, in order to try to win the PR battle. The U.S. will post its third party submissions, if any, but it's not clear to what extent it will want to get involved in a sensitive case like this one.

Comments

The Seal Products Panel Requests

There are two of them, one for the DS369 dispute and one for the DS400 dispute. These were both brought by Canada; no word yet on whether Norway will be making a panel request to follow its consultations request in DS401.

DS369 deals with consultations from 2007, relating to Belgian and Dutch trade restrictions on seal products. From the panel request:

The Belgian trade ban prohibits the preparation for sale or delivery to consumers, transport for sale or delivery, possession for the purpose of sale, importation, distribution and transfer of seal products. The Belgian import licensing requirement imposes a requirement that an import licence be issued for the importation of seal products.

The Dutch trade ban prohibits the importation of and trade in all harp seal and hooded seal products regardless of the animal's age. This includes a prohibition against asking for the sale, the buying or acquisition, the holding for sale or in stock, the selling or offering for sale, the transportation or offering for transport, the delivery, the use for commercial profit, the renting or hiring, the exchange or offer in exchange, the trade or exhibiting for commercial purposes or the bringing or possessing within or outside the territory of the Netherlands, of harp seal and hooded seal products.

There are claims under GATT Articles I:1, III:4, XI:1 and several provisions of Article V, as well as TBT Agreement Articles 2.1 and 2.2

DS400 deal with an EU-wide regulation and implementing rules. From the panel request:

The European Union trade ban prohibits the importation and the placing on the market for sale in the European Union customs territory of any seal product except: (a) those derived from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities, which contribute to their subsistence; and (b) those that are by-products of a hunt regulated by national law and with the sole purpose of sustainable management of marine resources. In addition, seal products for personal use may be imported but may not be placed on the market. The effect of the trade ban, in combination with the implementing measure, is to restrict virtually all trade in seal products within the European Union, and in particular with respect to seal products of Canadian origin.

There are claims under GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI:1, as well as TBT Agreement Articles 2.1 and 2.2 and certain other provisions of TBT Agreement Articles 5 and 7.

There are also references in both requests to GATT Article XXIII:1(b), the non-violation remedy, but it's not clear whether those claims will be pursued. Sometimes non-violation is mentioned in the panel request but the claims never go anywhere.

It may be harder to follow this case as it progresses than it is for cases involving the U.S. As far as I know, Canada does not generally post its submissions online. The EU does post its submissions, but often not until the proceeding is finished. Maybe the EU will make an exception for this case, in order to try to win the PR battle. The U.S. will post its third party submissions, if any, but it's not clear to what extent it will want to get involved in a sensitive case like this one.